[Deuce]

Deuce: If the purpose of social security is to keep the elderly from starving, why not just raise sufficient funds to do that (on an ongoing basis and based on reasonable projections) and leave people free to do whatever they want with any tax reduction that involves, if any?

Toddsterpatriot: That would be a beautiful thing. I get to invest my own money(and not starve) and the current people don't starve. So, we agreed all along.

My description, to which you now say you agree, differs from the current system only in DEGREE OF BENEFIT. To wit, the current SS system provides the aged with more than bare subsistence. Therefore, to address the issue directly, you should merely argue for a reduction in benefits, thereby requiring lower taxes, thereby leaving more to you. The "privatize" red herring was invented by snake oil selling politicians who don't have the guts to approach the issue directly.

[Toddsterpatriot]

My description, to which you now say you agree, differs from the current system only in DEGREE OF BENEFIT. To wit, the current SS system provides the aged with more than bare subsistence. Therefore, to address the issue directly, you should merely argue for a reduction in benefits, thereby requiring lower taxes, thereby leaving more to you. The "privatize" red herring was invented by snake oil selling politicians who don't have the guts to approach the issue directly.

If I can achieve a higher return ( I know, Social Security isn't an investment and doesn't really have a return) can't we keep the same benefits in place? How should the gutless politicians approach the issue?